So, let me get this straight, vigorously opposing a rule in your book means basically following it?Originally Posted by RandBlade
So, let me get this straight, vigorously opposing a rule in your book means basically following it?
Congratulations America
The alternative is civil disobedience, which in this thread you seem opposed to.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
I do? I'm not aware of that, at least not in this thread. With regards to Bohmerman I think he knew what he was doing so shouldn't whine about getting the result he was aiming for. That doesn't necessarily mean I think that he's doing the wrong thing trying to bring down the law. Neither does it mean I am agreeing with him on the tactics he used.
On balance I guess what I think is that it's a bit silly to have a rule like this on the books for foreign dignitaries who aren't even in the country but Bohmerman didn't make fun of the man and his ideas, he also didn't stop at the goat-fucking jibe which has some political traction as you and I should know, but he went as far as implying he likes child pornography. That was a step too far in my not so humble opinion.
You wouldn't think it funny in the least if you would see your face on TV while a person is telling you are a regular user of child pornography. And neither would I.
But sometimes you still get the right results through actions you don't agree with.
Congratulations America
Yes. You can agitate to get a law changed without breaking it.
Oh really, so what about Bohmerman. He obviously broke the law; does that mean he was wrong? Or is it just that you are too scared to do the right thing?
Congratulations America
Why is it that one and only one of those approaches can be the right thing? I catch the scent of a false dichotomy.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
No I think it's a free choice. I also don't think my breaking the law on this website will change anything while his protest could do.
Also there is a key difference here, in that the bad English and Welsh law is a bad one being enforced by the courts. The bad German one is an antiquated old one that needed the Chancellor of Germany to actually approve a prosecution, which reasonably she should not have done.
The guy is spelled with two 'n'. [/grammarnazi]
"Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt
Bohnerman?
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
No, at the endBohnerman?
"Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt
An unknown number of Syria refugees were killed by Turkish border guards. I predict nobody will lose his job over that.
Congratulations America
You sound happy over that fact. Are you morphing into Lewkowski?
I don't know what gives you that idea. I don't condone mowing down civilians trying to escape war zones. Neither do I like an utter lack of accountability for doing so.
I wonder why I had to write this post.
Congratulations America
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...an-jet-turkish
Don't know whether to be terrified or hopeful. Leaning towards the former.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Oh don't worry too much; he can never stay friends for long with someone who's not a sunni muslim. And even with those he starts calling terrorists as soon as it turns out they actually sometimes have a diverging opinion.
Congratulations America
Couldn't be bothered to start a new thread. Turkish police blaming attack on ISIS.
Last edited by Loki; 06-29-2016 at 02:20 AM.
Hope is the denial of reality
Seems like IS sop.
Congratulations America
So in the past few days I've seen an astonishing number of otherwise non-crazy people advance the bizarre argument that we should excuse Erdogan's shenanigans because he's done so much for the Turkish economy. Of course that's ridiculous but it got me wondering about what kind of impact Erdogan has had on the Turkish economy. Has he worked wonders, as some seem to believe? If not, who/what was responsible for the improvement really? Has he contributed to worsening the economy in less visible ways? Any and all input welcome.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
The answer is yes he and his party have done great things to improve the economy. However a lot of it is based on attracting foreign money and that means that the political instability he is causing by his autocratic tendencies does severe damage. If the rule of law is what the ruler decides it is, that gives people pause to think if their investment is safe in Turkey. Once the foreign money dries up the Turkish economy goes over the cliff. By the way half of the malls opened over the last decade are half empty and underperforming. There are serious indications that part of the reason why Davutoğlu had to go was that Davutoğlu had said that the Turkish state couldn't afford the big projects Erdoğan likes so much any longer.
Congratulations America
Not only is it a very bizarre logic (the ends justify the means), it isn't even true. Turkish GDP growth growth has not been particularly special under Erdogan's rule. Not terrible, but not great amongst developing nations.
I too am seeing mixed answers. On the one hand, greater fiscal discipline, esp. early on. On the other hand, rampant clientelism, unsustainable projects of dubious value, questionable policy wrt interest rates and a worrying over-reliance on foreign investment and debt (worrying because of the possible impact, on investors' perceptions and behavior, of political instability as well as of shenanigans).
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Btw, does the Turkish constitution really explicitly allow or even require the armed forces to intervene eg. when Turkey's secular nature is threatened or in any such situation?
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
As far as I know yes. You should not forget the present constitution was written by the generals who disposed of the civil government in september 1980. The way I understand it, article 4 of the Constitution, which declares even proposals for changes to the first 3 articles illegal was put there to curtail the powers of civil society.
Last edited by Hazir; 07-20-2016 at 11:30 AM.
Congratulations America
I ask because I keep seeing the claim but I've been unable to find the specific text that grants the armed forces this power.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
See my edit.
Congratulations America
Wikileaks has a huge cache of 300,000 Turkish government emails
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
About as interesting as when they would have dumped 300,000 random e-mails.
Congratulations America
The only reference I can find is to an amendment, in 2013, of some article of the legal code (unclear if it's in the constitution) that removed the legal justification used for previous coups.
The new article is supposed to read:
“the duty of the Armed Forces is to protect the Turkish homeland against threats and dangers to come from abroad, to ensure the preservation and strengthening of military power in a manner that will provide deterrence, to fulfill the duties abroad with the decision of the Parliament and help maintain international peace”
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Okay, Turkish Armed Forces Internal Service Law, Art. 35.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Appearantly up till 2001 the Constitution itself contained stronger wording enabling the armed forces to act, but that was curtailed by charging the Supreme Court with the powers to rule on constitutionality of laws and changes to the Constitution. Article 35 has been around for a lot longer.
Congratulations America
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote